This is definitely a hot area, but unfortunately, it is also becoming the thing everyone wants to be attached to.
And so the term is becoming increasingly meaningless.
It's 2012s "location-based services" or "gamification" or "cloud" (wait, that's still hot). That said, I suspect big data (at least as I think I understand it) has more legs. But defining what it is is important else it becomes yet another buzzword.
Are compete.com and quantcast big data? Is eBay who analyze terabytes of user meta data "big data"? Is SeatGeek big data? Is Twitter big data?
Just because you have a potentially large database of stuff doesn't mean you are big data. Hopefully the term comes to mean something but right now, I fear it does not.
You're spot on. If you make it about "what's in it for the reader or prospective customer", their receptivity and reaction to it will be much better. That is in stark contrast to "here's why we're great" emails which are the norm.
The ultimate user of this is Amazon who recommend you stuff based on what you've looked at or bought.
I think TylerE maybe in the vocal minority here (no disrespect TylerE) but the type of customized "what's in it for you" email your talking about works. And many users who are looking to make their lives easier actually may appreciate it.
Not to take the discussion totally off-topic, but if you are a portfolio company of the Crunch Fund, is this type of thing by Arrington a net positive for the portfolio co?
I suppose it could be him "getting their back", but I wonder if his invectives agst Bilton in this case or others more generally end up doing more potential harm to portfolio companies than they help.
While it was fine as a blogger for TC, I wonder if the no holds barred mantra of Arrington introduces an element of uncertainty for his cos, i.e., "what might this guy say that I may have to deal with later"?
How is anyone being exploited? You have a choice to pitch or not. It's not blackmail. It may be foolish to pitch at these events, but as far as I know, nobody is being forced into pitching or being told "you can't research this event and our track record before signing up."
Uh oh -- The downvoting has started. Feel free to do that but please explain where I'm missing the mark. Thanks.
-----
I'm really not sure why entrepreneurs who I'd suspect believe in free markets need to be coddled and "protected" from pay-to-pitch programs which at the end of the day are just another business - some good and some bad.
Just because you're a struggling entrepreneur doesn't mean other people shouldn't charge you or you're entitled to anything. At the end of the day, it is the entrepreneurs' choice. If you don't have the money or if the program doesn't seem legit, don't pay. And find another way to reach investors. If spending $50 or $100 gets you a credible chance at $500k of seed funding and helps accelerate your path to getting that money or getting feedback, that seems fair.
Some pay to pitch programs may add value. And some may not. If an entrepreneur learns that the hard way, so be it. Nobody ever said being an entrepreneur would be easy.
Cuban's points were a bit all over the place, but if we're talking about wealth creation of the F you money type, taking some personal/career risk often is required. Whether that's being a startup founder, being a hedge fund trader, or the best investment banker in the world, etc.
So if you don't want to start your own thing or work at one or work hard or generally take any risk, the wealth thing is probably going to prove elusive.
Of course, if you want to retire with a couple of million dollars, a nice corporate job and frugal lifestyle is prob all you need.
He's recommending if you have a $100k in savings, you should invest in startup tech companies and not public equities which is somewhere between ridiculous and stupid to dangerous. I like Cuban usually but this is terrible advice. If he meant you have an extra $100k to play with that you don't mind losing, then maybe this advice is ok.
Absolutely. But it seemed the original TC article was trying to suggest which program was best for startups. So if trying to figure out which program is better for general partners/limited partners, I agree average makes sense. For startup founders, median is what matters.
Ha. Good point. But I think with women at least (basing this observation on my wife/sisters), there is an element of sharing, i.e. "check out my new haircut" or "like my new haircut?" and so some central social way to do this could be good.
I'm not the demographic but if properly positioned, I could see women primarily using this.
I like Haircue. When my wife gets a haircut she likes, she always wishes she has pics of it right then so she can show the hairdresser the next time (esp if she needs to use someone else for some reason). And she tells me it always looks best right in the salon.
Good vanity, sharing, social-ness to this one. And prob some sort of B2B angle with hairdressers as well from a monetization perspective.
Not sure I understand your point. I'm asking for median valuations as averages often distort reality.
Plus, "median series A returned a loss" - huh? Can you clarify?
If 5 companies have valuations of $5, $10, $15, 20, $1000, the avg is $210 million. The median is $15 million. I'd argue the median is more representative of valuations received than averages. And if you're a startup founder, the median is more useful to gauge the program as that is more likely what your valuation will be near than the average.
PG - What is the median valuation of those fundraising rounds? Averages are not a great metric because the few big valuation winners (Dropbox, Airbnb) skew the average big time and bring up the "normals" a ton.
If Airbnb is valued at $1B and if there are 200 YC alums who've raised, that adds $5M to the "average valuation" of each YC startup. (I know those #s are not right but just for purposes of the example).
While I appreciate the attempt, this was pretty shoddy data analysis. First, Crunchbase's data is pretty bad. I saw a spreadsheet floated around some time ago that had a lot more YC companies listed on it (~200) so this is def not comprehensive. I'd imagine their TechStars data is even less complete given they tend to cover TS less than YC.
In terms of the analysis, some attempt to normalize the data would have been good.
Also, time-series figures would be more interesting as it would help show which program might be gaining or losing momentum.
In general, the idea of total funding being the best metric is laughable given how a few outliers skew the data.
It would have been interesting to see how quickly companies raise after the programs conclude. In a sense, analyzing by vintage/class would be more useful.
And then to conclude with the following "Y Combinator beat TechStars in many of these metrics, but none of these numbers translate to which (if either) is the best fit for your startup. That’s for you and them to figure out."
If your going to do some data analysis, try to make it actionable/useful and stand by it or take an opinion vs just a shallow attempt at data analysis which you neuter with caveats.
I agree 100% actually. I was annoyed with myself for taking the bait and commenting on this at all cuz it's an utter waste of time.
That said, I thought Paul Carr's effort to torpedo TC was unprofessional and disrespectful of his former colleagues who still get paid and probably require their paycheck from TC. I don't need to know the facts or the players (nor do I want to) to know this was a selfish move.
But again, agree that this whole saga is a waste. Back to real work.
But I'd like to know what folks read now. And please no lectures on why reading tech blogs are a waste of time. I like to waste my time :)